As I’m burnishing the deathless prose with which I expect to revolutionize the intellectual and spiritual lives of conference-goers, I’m culling quotations from pertinent sources, and found myself going over the Pontifical Council for Social Communications’ “The Church and the Internet,” which showed intriguing signs of cluetrainical insight.
Consider: “ The Church also needs to understand and use the Internet as a tool of internal communications. This requires keeping clearly in view its special character as a direct, immediate, interactive, and participatory medium.
“Already, the two-way interactivity of the Internet is blurring the old distinction between those who communicate and those who receive what is communicated,24 and creating a situation in which, potentially at least, everyone can do both. This is not the one-way, top-down communication of the past.”
Did Msgr. John P. Foley write that, or did Doc Searls script it for him?
There are predictable manifestations of the Magisterium’s nervousness about free dialogue — “it is confusing, to say the least, not to distinguish eccentric doctrinal interpretations, idiosyncratic devotional practices, and ideological advocacy bearing a ‘Catholic’ label from the authentic positions of the Church,” and “ The ‘tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence’ to the Church's teaching is a recognized problem in other contexts; more information is needed about whether and to what extent the problem is exacerbated by the Internet” — but the clues are there in the foreground.
Posted by AKMA at May 28, 2003 04:40 PM | TrackBackHmmm. Seems more like the millitary cluefulness as described by Laura Trippi at the DG conference. The basic program is to control the chaos generated by the unleashing of many voices so as the preserve the hierarchy. In contrast to the message of ClueTrain where the essence is the respect for individual autonomy, intellegence and authority, and the value this brings to the mission of the clueful organization.
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about the role of authority and hierarchy, which clearly have a place in history, if not the future. In my view, the authority of just leadership can only arise from the ground up based on the respect and honor of free people. The true leader is first amoung equals based on merrit and quality in action and dead.
Clear in this excerp is the fact that the church hierarchy is fearful of any truly open dialog that grants autonomy to individuals to make choices in accord with their hearts.
Let's take a moment to reexamine that. What we've done here is create two variables. The first variable is in the Heap, and we're storing data in it. That's the obvious one. But the second variable is a pointer to the first one, and it exists on the Stack. This variable is the one that's really called favoriteNumber, and it's the one we're working with. It is important to remember that there are now two parts to our simple variable, one of which exists in each world. This kind of division is common is C, but omnipresent in Cocoa. When you start making objects, Cocoa makes them all in the Heap because the Stack isn't big enough to hold them. In Cocoa, you deal with objects through pointers everywhere and are actually forbidden from dealing with them directly.
Posted by: Digory at January 13, 2004 12:07 AMWhen compared to the Stack, the Heap is a simple thing to understand. All the memory that's left over is "in the Heap" (excepting some special cases and some reserve). There is little structure, but in return for this freedom of movement you must create and destroy any boundaries you need. And it is always possible that the heap might simply not have enough space for you.
Posted by: Adlard at January 13, 2004 12:09 AMWhen a variable is finished with it's work, it does not go into retirement, and it is never mentioned again. Variables simply cease to exist, and the thirty-two bits of data that they held is released, so that some other variable may later use them.
Posted by: Aaron at January 13, 2004 12:10 AMThis is another function provided for dealing with the heap. After you've created some space in the Heap, it's yours until you let go of it. When your program is done using it, you have to explicitly tell the computer that you don't need it anymore or the computer will save it for your future use (or until your program quits, when it knows you won't be needing the memory anymore). The call to simply tells the computer that you had this space, but you're done and the memory can be freed for use by something else later on.
Posted by: Justinian at January 13, 2004 11:41 AMSeth Roby graduated in May of 2003 with a double major in English and Computer Science, the Macintosh part of a three-person Macintosh, Linux, and Windows graduating triumvirate.
Posted by: Christopher at January 13, 2004 11:42 AMThis code should compile and run just fine, and you should see no changes in how the program works. So why did we do all of that?
Posted by: Annanias at January 13, 2004 11:42 AM